Political intransigence, faltering leadership and the needs of the nation

utahhousedemocrats.comAny chance of connecting politics and common purpose?

Starting with the debt ceiling shenanigans in D.C., an artificial crisis to be sure but a “learning experience” nonetheless. So far, in my judgment, what we’ve learned doesn’t bode well for the republic. One might say a 'plague on both your parties' but that’s simplistic, and while partially deserved, is not particularly helpful.

So, some reflections to provide perspective:

... that “if you hold one-half of one-third of the reins of power in Washington and are willing to use and maintain that kind of discipline even if you will bring the entire temple down around your own head, there is a pretty good chance that you are going to get your way.” So says Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. I think it’s more alarming than Ornstein thinks: The fringe in the GOP is becoming the mainstream.

... that repeatedly claiming that calamity is coming if the nation defaults simply doesn’t work when the people you are trying to reach, or, if you prefer, threaten and intimidate, don’t believe anything the federal government says. And, moreover, when “know-nothingism is reinforced by opportunistic political figures.” So says Elizabeth Drew in her smart, engaging assessment of the deficit “negotiations” (The New York Review of Books: “What Were They Thinking?”) Michele Bachman, for example, made denial a part of her campaign with comments such as this one: “Don’t let them scare you by telling you that the country’s going to fall apart.”

... that passing the buck is in vogue: To me, it’s crazy that a solution that defied elected officials is now being handed off to a “super” committee--essentially a procedural step to avoid direct responsibility. Do we elect these people to govern or to pass the buck? And, how likely, anyway, are the “supers” to reach a deal? It’s hard to see how the outcome of their negotiations will be any different from this last awful round. Already the parties-- with an eye, always, to the next election--are using the S&P downgrade and the gyrating stock market to bolster their own ideological positions.

One can imagine agreement on the need to reduce the deficit—although economists argue over the timing and wisdom of that move especially when growth is iffy, unemployment is high, and consumer confidence (for most) is at a scary low. But, if reducing the deficit can become a shared objective, what about the fundamental disagreement about the means? Cutting spending and raising revenue, both, must be included and it’s there that compromise falters.

... that tax policy, framed in frightfully divergent terms, is front and center, again, but to what effect? I won’t repeat myself but this has to be said: Taxes are at their lowest rate in 60 years--since the presidency of Harry Truman. For corporations, particularly, it’s a good time as profits skyrocket, but, consider these high returns in light of the fact that individuals now pay a much larger share of taxes than businesses, five times more, in fact. In 2010, individual taxpayers paid $898.5 billion in income taxes and companies paid $191.4 billion. Isn’t it time to rebalance the tax burden? And, speaking of that, how about rebalancing the individual rates as well? Keeping wealthy people at a distance from the fiscal problems, as in “NO NEW TAXES,” is poor policy and insults any sense of fairness.

..... The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that lowered tax rates on income, dividends and capital gains, increased the federal budget deficit by $1.7 trillion over a decade;
..... The two year extension of those tax cuts will cost $857.8 billion.

We need changes in tax rates and policy and we need to eliminate the loopholes and special tax treatment that take some major players off the field. The Sunday Times’ editorial "The Truth About Taxes," gets it right. It concludes as follows:

“The public is open to new taxes, and the economic facts are clear. Until tax increases are considered in equal measure to spending cuts, there will be no budget fix.”

Add these facts to the tax/revenue/income picture: Two wars (and other military ‘engagements’) draining the nation’s coffers and a struggling, sick economy (for most of us anyway). And, smack up against reality, we have the Bush tax cuts (which Obama allowed to be extended) that turned a surplus—$137 billion at the end of the Clinton administration—to a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit at the end of the Bush years.

... that jobs remain a persistent focus of national concern. So, can we get back to, or rather, get to jobs? To the unemployment rate? The president is promising action on jobs. Really? It’s about time; I’d say overdue.

What actions create jobs? Stimulus spending and private investment, among others, not to mention overall confidence in the economy. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Can we please acknowledge that fact after what we have been through--less and less taxes, more and more unemployment--and dismiss the mythology? Here are some more facts to help: Those small businesses that the Republicans (and some Democrats) keep saying they are protecting by refusing to allow tax increases on those earning $250,000? How many of them do you think there are? Fewer than 3 percent of the 20 million people who file business income on their personal tax forms earn that much. So, folks, remember that when you’re asked to oppose tax increases on small businesses! It’s big businesses and wealthy individuals that are the intended beneficiaries of no tax increases. To see how the protected wealthy are thriving, check this out.

And finally,

... that the public, as usual, is left out when political parties posture strategically. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory University, observes:

“What makes the ‘deficit debate’ we just experienced seem so surreal is how divorced the conversation in Washington has been from conversations around the kitchen table everywhere else in America.”

Polls, before and after indicated, strongly, that the public cares more about job creation than about deficit reduction, by a ratio of more than two to one. People see through the shenanigans, the seeking of political advantage. People want what’s best for the country. Accordingly, after the deficit deal, polls showed a record 82 percent of Americans saying they disapprove of Congress. Why am I not surprised? (Astonishing is the 14 percent!). Congress, as usual, is unlikely to do anything to improve its standing. And, the president? Well, his numbers decline the more he acts as a mediator instead of as a president. His ‘leadership’ is, to be generous, mystifying.

So, to conclude the dismal story from, admittedly, my choice of perspectives, what we have, in short, is this: Republicans, driven by the expanding Tea Party crowd, held out. Democrats, lacking a similar driver, cave. And no one, on Main Street or Wall Street appears happy about the outcome--or--the nation’s politics or prospects. The S&P downgrades the nation’s debt rating; confidence plummets; the stock market gyrates wildly ending way down from a year ago; and uncertainty intensifies. We have, I repeat, inconsistent and even incoherent leadership in the White House. We have no leadership in Congress.

Not a good time for the nation, for the states, for the community.

For starters, we need to set the terms of the debate to reflect facts, values and the need for economic growth and sustainability, to defend the appropriate functions of government and confirm the social contract (and learn when and how to compromise and when to stand on principle and act on it). On the latter point, it might be a good idea to recall history and the fear expressed by one of our founders, James Madison, as John Farmer, Jr. reminds us in his provocative analysis, “Divided we fall,” in Sunday’s Star Ledger:

“Groups of citizens, ‘who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…has been the mortal disease….from which popular governments everywhere have perished.’”

Within the many reflections offered during the past week is this message to lawmakers: Get past political posturing and pettiness, refuse to accede to the self-interest that undercuts common purpose, focus on the nation’s short and long term interests, and, listen to the people’s call for leadership and collective action. The future of the nation may well be at stake.